Newly Ratified NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement: CBA-Driven Schedule Growth Sets NHL Apart

Introduction

The National Hockey League (“NHL”) and the National Hockey League Players’ Association (“NHLPA”) have ratified a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) that expands the regular season and increases player participation in international competition. This collectively bargained increase in the number of games played during the NHL season is notable as it comes at a time when certain other sports are dealing with player-driven pressures to decrease or condense the playing calendar.

The NHL and NHLPA’s agreement on the increase to games stands in contrast with other major sports such as European football and professional tennis, where fixture calendars are largely set by the respective leagues or governing bodies. In these systems, athletes often have less formal input into scheduling, leading many to raise concerns about overloaded schedules and the associated physical toll.

This article compares the NHL’s CBA-driven approach to scheduling with that of other sports, highlighting how each model affects player welfare, league operations and the increasing demands placed on athletes.

New NHL CBA and Increased Schedule

The new CBA, set to take effect in the 2026-2027 season, expands the regular season from 82 to 84 games. The CBA also confirms that NHL players will participate in the 2026 and 2030 Winter Olympics, returning to Olympic competition for the first time in over a decade. These announcements follow the earlier introduction of the 4 Nations Face-Off, a newly launched international tournament featuring Canada, the United States, Sweden and Finland, and serve to further increase the amount of international activity players participate in during the NHL season.

Player-Driven Pressures to Decrease Schedules in Non-Collectively Bargained Sports Environments

Outside of North America, many sports operate without collectively bargained schedules.

For example, the Professional Footballers’ Association (“PFA”), which represents players in the English Premier League, among other leagues, represents and advocates for players on labour and employment issues, such as contractual support, education and health and welfare. However, the PFA does not have a formal role in determining the playing schedule with fixture calendars, which is primarily determined by the Premier League, clubs and external competition organizers (such as UEFA and FIFA). The PFA has raised concerns about overscheduling.^[1]

Similarly, L’Union nationale des footballeurs professionnels (“UNFP”), which represents players in France’s Ligue 1, has raised concerns about overscheduling.^[2] As in England, the league and governing bodies determine the fixture list without formal player input. In 2024, the PFA and UNFP joined FIFPRO, the international football players’ organization, in a formal complaint to the European Commission, alleging that FIFA’s international calendar expansions violated players’ rights and European Union competition law by creating an “unsustainable” schedule.^[3]

Additionally, the lack of perceived formal player input on scheduling in European football has drawn criticism from top players, with several voicing concerns about “unsustainable” match calendars due to the growing number of club and international fixtures.^[4]

In individual sports like tennis, athletes are even further removed from scheduling decisions. The Association of Tennis Professionals and the Women’s Tennis Association set the calendar and govern rules related to scheduling, prize money and medical protocols. While player councils exist, decision-making authority largely remains with the tours. As with European football, certain top tennis players have publicly criticized the length of the tennis season and the limited time available for rest and recovery.^[5]

These examples illustrate that some leagues have a more difficult time securing player buy-in for expanded schedules when player input is limited.

NHL’s Approach to Managing Expanded Season

Given the expansion of the regular season and additional international commitments, the NHL and NHLPA did negotiate several changes aimed at safeguarding player welfare. The new CBA provides enhanced medical care for current players and alumni, including increases to health plan coverage, career-ending disability benefits and improved health-care coverage and post-career supports for retired players – a development welcomed by advocates for post-career health protections. While the bargaining process is confidential, it’s difficult to imagine that these benefits were not sought as direct tradeoffs to the season and international activity expansion.

The agreement also reduces the number of preseason games to four and eliminates traditional physical testing during training camp and the regular season, both intended to ease players into the longer schedule. While the CBA does not introduce explicit limits on practice time or travel, it emphasizes enhanced medical infrastructure and shortens training camp to help mitigate the added demands of a longer season.

As the NHL transitions to an 84-game schedule, continued attention to player fatigue, travel demands and injury rates will be essential. Notably, when the National Football League expanded to a 17-game season under its 2021 collective bargaining agreement, it implemented measures such as mandated bye weeks after international games, reduced preseason play, expanded post-career health benefits and increased focus on travel logistics. While the NHL has already taken similar steps in some areas, additional safeguards may be considered in future negotiations if concerns about workload and health outcomes intensify.

Conclusion

The NHL’s new CBA highlights the role collective bargaining can play in shaping major changes in professional sport. By negotiating terms like season length and player health provisions, the process ensures that the athlete perspective is taken into account in decisions that affect their well-being, including scheduling and workload. This stands in contrast to European football and individual sports like tennis, where scheduling changes are often made without formal player involvement.

Each system carries its own tradeoffs. The traditional North American model offers transparency and some level of protection for players but can involve drawn-out negotiations. Decentralized systems with limited union involvement may allow for quicker decisions but risk bypassing critical input on adequate player safeguards.

As professional sports continue to globalize and commercial pressures grow, athlete welfare and labour relations will remain at the forefront. The NHL’s approach provides a model that other leagues may look to as they balance business growth with the health and longevity of their players.

The Sports, Media & Entertainment Group at Aird & Berlis LLP assists clients in navigating contracts, transactions, regulations, disputes and more. Please contact the authors or a member of the group if you have questions or require assistance.